Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

No rational, moral person would commit murder just because their employer orders them to do it. Unless you're going to argue the servants are indoctrinated, which seems directly contradicted by Shannon and Kanon's struggle toward being human.

No rational, moral person would commit murder just because their employer orders them to do it. Unless you're going to argue the servants are indoctrinated, which seems directly contradicted by Shannon and Kanon's struggle toward being human.

Kinzo obviously put them through some kind military training or something similar to it. Why else would Kinzo teach Kanon to use a gun? For kicks?

And really at least I have a motive for the servants to kill people. You guys can't even accept bribery as a motive. It might be immoral, but really murder is an immoral thing. Just saying that they're immoral for doing that doesn't say that I'm wrong.

There's a difference. Bribery, threats, excuses, even if morally unjustifiable, are reasons. "I am your boss and I order you to brutally kill these people, even though I may not even still be alive" is just insane. Who would obey an order like that without some kind of inducement to do it? And it'd have to either be a really good reason, or the person who did it would have to be really messed up, crazy, or poorly morally grounded (they could be sane, just bad at understanding why things are wrong).

I'm just tired of you bringing morals up every time I bring up a motive when murder is inherently an immoral thing to do. There is no good reason to commit murder. I used to bring up bribery all the time, but because of that stupid argument that no moral person would take money to kill someone. I keep on dropping it.

There is one thing that keeps bugging me about this word, it could be another thing accidentally lost in translation. "Ushiromiya Battler has a sin." ('tsumi ga aru')

My friend, a culturologist, wrote a paper on the particular meaning of the word 'tsumi' in Japanese culture, and according to him, the match between it and 'sin' is not complete -- saying "Ushiromiya Battler has a sin." does not necessarily mean that Battler himself is guilty of anything. Someone with an open festering wound also has a sin, as does someone who got stained by a random bird flying overhead. 'tsumi' is a state of uncleanliness for ritual purposes which may or may not result from the individual's own actions.

But it was said in red that SOMETHING that Battler does (or happens to him) results in people dying.

We can't ignore this.

Never said we could ignore it, it's the most important missing piece. The problem is that I can't say it has been found, because the only theory for it supported by clues ("promise given to someone, presumably Shannon, and later broken") does not yet translate into the murder cascade in a completely satisfactory way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

...Plus, if someone is crazy enough to even CONSIDER killing any group of 17 people for any reason, it's doubtful that they are going to let petty things like "morals" stop them.

The assumption that someone ever actually considered killing the entire set of 17 people at once is not really well founded, definitely not a certainty. (The proper scale of the presumed explosion/landslide/other disaster is simply not known, nor it is known when it is initiated, just that it happens on the midnight of the last day.)

Never said we could ignore it, it's the most important missing piece. The problem is that I can't say it has been found, because the only theory for it supported by clues ("promise given to someone, presumably Shannon, and later broken") does not yet translate into the murder cascade in a completely satisfactory way.

The assumption that someone ever actually considered killing the entire set of 17 people at once is not really well founded, definitely not a certainty. (The proper scale of the presumed explosion/landslide/other disaster is simply not known, nor it is known when it is initiated, just that it happens on the midnight of the last day.)

I know, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that it is an important piece of information given to us in Episode 4 about the sin.

And it's problematic that there's mystery behind the word "sin."

And I also know that there are really no hard pieces of evidence supporting anything I've speculated about; I'm just trying to encourage the thinking of theories that are not really thought of that much.

After all, we could be falling for a major trap by trying to incorporate all the clues that have been presented.
"Drowing in a sea of keys" as Ryukishi07 calls it.

Of course, this isn't a reason to disregard the evidence.

Let's just not let our imaginations be bound by stuff that hasn't been totally confirmed yet.

Never said we could ignore it, it's the most important missing piece. The problem is that I can't say it has been found, because the only theory for it supported by clues ("promise given to someone, presumably Shannon, and later broken") does not yet translate into the murder cascade in a completely satisfactory way.

Well, we can at least say that whatever his sin was, it didn't really have to deal with a person.

Quote:

The assumption that someone ever actually considered killing the entire set of 17 people at once is not really well founded, definitely not a certainty. (The proper scale of the presumed explosion/landslide/other disaster is simply not known, nor it is known when it is initiated, just that it happens on the midnight of the last day.)

I agree with this. If we are to point to a specific person as a culprit, then it would be hard to fathom the reason why he/she would kill a loved one. You might think that they would do anything to reach their goal, but that's doubtable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

I know, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that it is an important piece of information given to us in Episode 4 about the sin.

And it's problematic that there's mystery behind the word "sin."

And I also know that there are really no hard pieces of evidence supporting anything I've speculated about; I'm just trying to encourage the thinking of theories that are not really thought of that much.

After all, we could be falling for a major trap by trying to incorporate all the clues that have been presented.
"Drowing in a sea of keys" as Ryukishi07 calls it.

Of course, this isn't a reason to disregard the evidence.

Let's just not let our imaginations be bound by stuff that hasn't been totally confirmed yet.

However, that's the problem. What can be confirmed outside of the Red Truth and things seen by Battler?

Sin is considered a "dirty thing" anyway. If that word was meant to have that type of double meaning well it doesn't help us figure it out any better considering most of the sin theories are vague promises. Some people think Battler leaving the family is his sin. Some people think his sin was a promise to come back on a white horse or a promise to play with Maria every year. Some people think his sin was denying magic in front of Shannon.The sin in Higurashi was something the protagonist caused though. He gave a doll to Rena because he didn't think Mion liked girly things and that ended up making Shion jealous of Mion.

But really his sin is so vague. It could be anything. Some people in some christian groups see lying as a sin. In fact there's a verse that says that all liars deserve to go to hell. So are we dealing with moral people if they're willing to lie about any person's death? I really don't think so. Ryukishi likes to use sins as a theme in his games. The difference is in Umineko it's not given to us. We have to figure it out.

Don't forget that EP6 gives us a hint about Battler's sin. Or rather, it explains a hint that EP5 gave us. Whatever that sin was, it must have been something significant enough that he felt like apologizing to Beato after he remembered it, even though Beato supposedly killed his entire family. Of course, we have no proof that Beatrice was responsible for his family's death, but somehow, his "sin" against her was. That seems vitally important to me.

__________________

"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers

I'm just tired of you bringing morals up every time I bring up a motive when murder is inherently an immoral thing to do. There is no good reason to commit murder. I used to bring up bribery all the time, but because of that stupid argument that no moral person would take money to kill someone. I keep on dropping it.

No, it's quite an important distinction to make, at least assuming the author himself is also making such a distinction. I'm not bringing this up to "shut you down" or upset you, and I do apologize if it seems that way. I'm really not developing my own moral calculus properly anyway, so it's hard for me to communicate the issue here.

Let me see if I can explain the moral/rational actor difference. I know this will sound way too involved for Umineko, and I agree to an extent, but I think we consider these things without necessarily thinking about them.

First: Morality of murder. I am absolutely in agreement with you that murder is never morally justifiable. However, moral justification alone doesn't inform every action.

An action is moral if it conforms to a person's system of right and wrong. For most people, murder is viewed as wrong because of the irreversible harm it causes and the immediate suffering and pain. It's possible for a person to have a moral system in which murder isn't immoral, but I don't believe anyone in Umineko has a system where this is the case. So I agree that whoever is killing is doing evil in their own mind, and I agree that this alone does not stop them from doing it (obviously so).

Second: Rational justification of murder. This is where I think we disconnect. You are quite upset with me for objecting to your motive suggestions because if a person is going to do moral wrong, why does it matter? But I think there's a rationality angle as well that informs actors.

In other words, while no one may believe it is moral to commit murder, there are (or could be) people who believe it is rational to consider doing it even knowing it is wrong.

I would argue that any justification must conform to one of the following combinations:

Moral & Rational: The killer knows murder is wrong, but thinks he or she has a perfectly rational reason to "need" to do it anyway. For instance, if Krauss believed that saving his own skin, or the family's reputation, was more of an imperative act than not committing the moral wrong of murder, he might be inclined to do it. He knows it's wrong, but he feels like he has to.

Immoral & Rational: The killer doesn't know murder is wrong or doesn't believe it's wrong, and thus his or her actions are entirely rational because murder is an appropriate act to take in furtherance of their ends. For instance, imagine that someone honestly believed she was Beatrice the Golden Witch and had all her powers, including the Endless Magic that revives the dead. Murder might be necessary to fulfill some greater aim, with the moral caveat that they have to "make it right." I don't like this one, but it's valid.

I am wary of the following:

Moral & Irrational: The killer knows murder is wrong, and is willing to commit it nevertheless for a reason which is not reasonable or rationally sound. The servants blindly obeying a murder order because "we're furniture" is irrational. They're still capable of recognizing that you need a better reason than that.

Immoral & Irrational: Just plain crazy. Doesn't know right from wrong, doesn't know what they're doing. I'm sure no one would be satisfied by this.